Ophiolite

It is quite difficult to maintain a polite demeanor in the face of intransigent obtuseness. You have been asked to make changes. The suggested changes have been specified. You have chosen not to implement them, but instead to proceed with fatuous arguments. No. I am now going to get pissy about it. I gave you very clear feedback. Look at the fucking points made by Anatres in his opening post. Now, you have - by your words an inaction - clearly indicated that you do not see the ambiguity two members believe to exist. I pointed out that if it is thought to exist and can be easily remedied, then why the fuck don't remedy it. And at this point is easy to someone who does not realise the function of a moderator is to respond sympathetically to positive suggestions made by members and not make offensive remarks about their motives. Where the fuck did I bring it up? (i.e the discussion thread on forum rules) It was two fucking years ago. I barely remember what I was doing last week and I certainly don't recall what views I may or may not have written two or three years ago. You know, it is not uncommon for peoples views to evolve over time, or for one to recognise an opportunity for an improvement when it is drawn to ones attention, though one may have previously missed it. It's really very simple. There is an ambiguity in the rules. It has been pointed out. A solution has been offered. You decline to implement the solution and instead argue and patronise. Seriously disappointing and meriting the several fucks that have peppered this post. Let me know when you are ready to apologise for your boorish behaviour.

The part clearly and succinctly identified by Antares in his opening post. If you do not see the ambiguity, please accept that at least two members see it. I am perplexed by why you are unwilling to make a small change that will remove that ambiguity, but instead seem determined to argue that there is not a problem. And? How is that relevant? 1. The last activity on that thread was in 2014. Members on this and other forums are discourage from reviving long inactive threads. 2. I haven't noticed that thread recently. 3. This is the active thread discussing one specific aspect of the topic.

And the puddle said, "Isn't it remarkable I should have found a hole that is just the right shape for me?"

Who exactly is "declaring it the endall of being"? Fools? Yes. The inadequately educated? Yes. Those provoked by stupidity of others to overstate their case? Yes. Richard Dawkins? Oh, wait! We've already covered him with two out of three. If by voodoo they mean "a superstitious suite of beliefs unsupported, and in many cases contradicted, by evidence" then that would appear to be an accurate statement. Your remark could also be taken as a slight on voodoo. Do you not consider voodoo to be a religion? What do you have against it? In the absence of a citation I take this to be an opinion. It is, however, not a very sound one. If 80% of graduates never get a job in their major this is largely because the jobs are not available. If they were available then, on average, 80% of science jobs would go unfilled. Do we see this anywhere? In any discipline or geographic area? I rather think not. A good degree, properly attained, delivers a graduate with an inquiring mind, critical thinking skills, and imaginative problem solving abilities. Those are applicable in a wide variety of professions.

This is off-topic. It has been discussed in numerous previous posts. I recommend, if you wish to discuss it further, start a new thread. In the meantime note that we are currently unable to place a meaningful number on the likelihood of life emerging. You assert the origin of life on Earth was an extremely remote possibility. Jacques Monod, Nobel Laureate, asserted it was a unique event. Christian de Duve, Nobel Laureate, asserted life is common and abundant throughout the universe. So, at this time, all we can can say is "We don't know".

I agree with Lord Antares that the current rules are ambiguous. The references to "making things up for fun" and - to a lesser extent - "postulate new ideas" suggest it's OK to throw out wild notions for consideration and discussion. If I am interpreting swansont's post correctly, he agrees this is OK. What is not acceptable is claiming this is true without evidence. I don't think that distinction comes out in the rules. In practice it seems "fun ideas" are never welcomed, but perhaps that's because it very rare for the speculator to accept they may be wrong.

As opposed to yourself, who simply see yourself as superior to the other members?

So, we are agreed. You have made a bunch of assumptions that have little or no justification.

1. Do you want to take another stab at answering the question? There are multiple ancestors of humans, since we have a linear progression extending back to the beginning. Are you asserting that the species and genera I mentioned are not part of that progression? 2.You don't get to make up your own definitions of human. Well, you can make them up, but they are going to be ignored by anyone with a knowledge of the subject. 3. Anyone on a science forum making an argument that is contrary to the current consensus should be prepared to provide citations. If they wish to be considered serious and polite they should offer those citations from the outset: they should not need to be asked. Now, do you wish to provide a citation for your assertion that "The single largest step in mental development was writing." There is zero reference in the link you provided to writing. There is not even a reference to language. And this time, how about a proper citation, not a journalist's interpretation of the original research. 4. You posted a total non-sequitur. I responded in kind. Do you wish now to explain what the hell you were talking about in relation to the Neanderthal DNA? Very few dispute this, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the various claims you have made in your post. 5. Do you intend to address your confusion between genetic evolution and cultural/technological evolution? Or do you prefer to sweep that under the carpet?

My immediate reaction on seeing Columbia mentioned was the Missoula floods. I see zapatos had the same thought. The tephra explanation from arc also seems plausible. I think you may have misunderstood the nature of tephra. The suggestion is not that the boulder was formed by the fusion of ash and larger crystals into a tuff. The idea is that a fragment of previously consolidated magma was ejected as a discrete piece. As to the hand specimen, the large crystals appear to feldspar, while the ground mass looks generally basaltic, based upon the colour. How sharp are the crystal boundaries of the phenocrysts? That would give insight as to the extent of disequilibrium/equilibrium between the phenocryts and the then liquid magma.

Really? So, you feel that the remains of Austrolopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis etc. are .....? Figments of the imagination? Misclassified primates? Hoaxes? While the distinction between animal and human is better placed in colloquial exchanges than one on science, anthropologists would not agree with youe description of our earlier ancestors as animals. Citation required. You seem to be confusing cultural and technical evolution, with genetic evolution. And J.J. Abrams disappointed many viewers of Lost with the weak ending. So what?

So many unjustified assumptions: 1. You are assuming that the existence of a god is the same as the existence of an after-life. 2. You are assuming that any god would be interested in humans. 3. You are assuming that any god would do more than create the universe, but would continue to be involved in it. 4. You appear to be assuming that this is how believers would also think.

What you refer to as extraneous human stuff is simply an expression of the instinctive drives utilising the human skill set.

And the size of the charge if we are discussing artillery guns.

Many people believe in astrology. Many people believe UFOs are alien spacecraft. Many people believe in homeopathic medicine. Many people believe that they "have theory". Many people believe in ghosts. This is indicative that many people have shit for brains.

I've read the book. I have a copy. I have a few of his books. I still don't understand what coincidence you are talking about, or how his investigations relate to it. Will you clarify.

And still you miss the point. While some PhD's are also a dab hand at carpentry and plumbing and car mechanics, many are completely inept, yet brilliant in their own field. I hired skilled tradespeople to repair my roof, rewire the electrics, install a new kitchen, plaster some walls and lay carpet. But not one of them - and I doubt any current member - could adequately recommend a specific bit and associated drilling parameters for any oil and gas well on the planet. No one is disputing the different skill sets and knowledge bases possessed by individuals and groups. You seem to think some here are. You are mistaken. I notice you have failed to respond to my suggestion you consider the two words empirical and theoretical. Scared?

Two points. 1. Proximity is an aggressive, argumentative prat. 2. However, his fundamental thesis is valid. There is an elite within the membership who tend to overlook behaviour in fellow members of that elite that they would not tolerate in others. This is such basic and typical behaviour and is certainly present here that it routinely astounds me that almost none of the elite are aware of it. (Or are willing to acknowledge it.)

I would think an expired cough medicine would be just fine for an expired cough.

1. Goecentric 2. Anthropomorphic 3. Value judgements 4. Not much science. I still don't get the analogy (?) of bedrock. That confuses more than clarifies, at least for me.

Here are two words: Empirical Theoretical If you cannot see how these relate to your misperception then, like Lord Antares, I probably cannot do much for you. Edit: I suspect the block for you is not intellect, but obstinacy.

A worthy goal. This is a strong assertion. Do you have any actual evidence to support the claim? Keep in mind that many scientists have offered a variety of plausible explanations of how life may have arisen, all of which use only physics and chemistry in their explanations. I am not aware of any scientist that has ever attempted to create a micro-organism by imitating primeval conditions. (Feel free to demonstrate that I am wrong.) You seem to be misinterpreting the sort of experiment that began with the Miller/Urey work in the 1950s. If that is what you are thinking of, then I suggest your background in the subject is not sufficiently strong for you to have a worthwhile opinion on it. Evolution and abiogenesis are related, but wholly different subjects. Again, you are revealing a very limited grasp of the basics. I understand your interest in the subject. It is a fascinating one. However, you need to get a more solid background before making wild ass guesses. Since there is almost certainly no such force, its discovery would be more than startling.

Agreed.

I don't think CharonY is suggesting you need to pick a PhD advisor. Rather, if you can look at the publications and hence specific fields of study of the faculty members, you can get a clearer idea of which different aspects of the degree topic will receive most attention. In turn that will give you a feel for the course you may prefer. It may also give you insight into the research or work you may be interested in doing. (I'm sure CharonY will correct me if I misinterpreted.)

Damn! You beat me to it. (As always.)